Background The predictive value of the prognostic tool for patients with advanced cancer is uncertain in mainland China, especially in the home-based palliative care (HPC) setting. This study aimed to compare the accuracy of the Palliative Prognostic Index (PPI), the Performance Status–Based Palliative Prognostic Index (PS-PPI), and the Chinese Prognosis Scale (ChPS) for patients with advanced cancer in the HPC setting in mainland China. Methods Patients with advanced cancer admitted to the hospice center of Yuebei People’s Hospital between January 2014 and December 2018 were retrospectively calculated the scores according to the three prognostic tools. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to compare survival times among different risk groups. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to assess the predictive value. The accuracy of 21-, 42- and 90-day survival was compared among the three prognostic tools. Results A total of 1863 patients were included. Survival time among the risk groups of all prognostic tools was significantly different from each other except for the PPI. The AUROC of the ChPS was significantly higher than that of the PPI and PS-PPI for 7-, 14, 21-, 42-, 90-, 120-, 150- and 180-day survival (P < 0.05). The AUROC of the PPI and PS-PPI were not significantly different from each other (P > 0.05). Conclusions The ChPS is more suitable than the PPI and PS-PPI for advanced cancer patients in the HPC setting. More researches are needed to verify the predictive value of the ChPS, PPI, and PS-PPI in the HPC setting in the future.

Deregulation of tripartite motif (TRIM) family proteins contribute to multiple biological processes such as neurodegeneration, development, inflammation, cell survival, apoptosis, and carcinogenesis. However, the biological function and molecular mechanism of TRIM family proteins in osteosarcoma chemoresistance remain unclear. In the current study, we found the protein expression of TRIM10 was markedly overexpressed in cisplatin resistance's osteosarcoma tissues and TRIM10 overexpression was inversely correlated with osteosarcoma patient survival. Furthermore, overexpression of TRIM10 confers cisplatin resistance on osteosarcoma cells; however, repressing TRIM10 sensitized osteosarcoma cell lines to cisplatin cytotoxicity in vitro. Mechanically, TRIM10 upregulated the nuclear levels of p65, thereby activating canonical NF‐κB signaling. Taken together, our results suggest that TRIM10 contributed to cisplatin resistance in osteosarcoma cells, and targeting the TRIM10/p65 axis may represent a promising strategy to enhance cisplatin response in osteosarcoma patients with chemoresistance.